I think he’s referring to the procedure being done on infants without consent based on non-scientific, traditional reasons being disgusting. Not that the circumcision is inherently disgusting. But that’s just a guess. I don’t know.
-
-
Or any male genital mutilation. Not just circumcision. FGM is not the female equivalent to circumcision. Removing the clitoral hood would be the female equivalent of removing foreskin.
-
Except that’s not how it’s widely practiced. FGM typically involves full clitorectomy and the sewing shut of the vaginal opening to only allow the massage of menstrual blood and urine, a barrier only to be broken by the “husband” she’s essentially Sold to.
-
Tweet unavailable
-
At any rate, it’s a false equivalence. The context of my comment should have implied I was referring to Muslim cultures, where it’s performed on virtually all young girls.
-
To my knowledge, FGM is an explicitly religious practice, while the same can’t be said for male circumcision
-
FGM also serves no real purpose.. not one of benefit anyway
-
What was falsely equivocated? I was making an anatomical & terminological distinction. FGM:hoodectomy :: MGM:circumcision ————— FGM:clitorectomy :: MGM:penectomy*
-
I said: ‘FGM is not the “female equivalent” to [male] circumcision.’ Even if I was using your implication: ‘FGM [Infibulation] is not the female equivalent to [male] circumcision.’ It fits & is something my original statement (or I) didn’t implicitly deny.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The “consent” argument falls flat when one compares infant circumcision to adolescent/adult circumcision. It’s an imposed burden that inherently requires suffering, while on infants, it arguably does not.. in any meaningful sense
-
That being said, I personally would have chosen it, but I’m glad I didn’t have to
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.